Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

Epidemiology of interstitial lung disease in patients with metastatic breast cancer at baseline and after treatment with HER2-directed therapy: a real-world data analysis.

PURPOSE: Using real-world data, interstitial lung disease (ILD) prevalence before and after HER2-directed therapy was estimated. Potential ILD risk factors in patients receiving HER2-directed therapy for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) were evaluated. METHODS: Adults with HER2-directed therapy for mBC initiated between September 25, 1998, and February 22, 2020 were, included. ILD was defined broadly as one or more of 64 lung conditions. Patients were followed until incident ILD, death, last contact, or study end. RESULTS: In total, 533 patients were identified with median age at mBC of 57, 51% had de novo mBC, 43% were ever smokers, 30% had lung metastases, 9% had thoracic radiation, 6% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 16% had prevalent ILD. ILD cumulative incidence at one year was 9% (95% CI 6%, 12%), with a median follow-up of 23 months. Smoking (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1, 4.8) and Black/African-American race (HR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6, 7.5) were significantly associated with ILD; HRs for preexisting lung conditions (HR 1.8, 95% CI 0.9, 3.8) and thoracic radiation (HR 2.3, 95% CI 0.8, 7.1) were not statistically significant. Prevalent ILD was associated with 13-fold greater occurrence of incident ILD. 85% of patients with prevalent or incident ILD were symptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world population of patients with mBC had a high prevalence of ILD prior to HER2-directed therapy, reflecting the multifactorial causation of interstitial lung changes. The cumulative incidence of ILD in patients receiving HER2-directed therapy for mBC augments prior reports. Symptomatic presentation suggests an opportunity for early intervention.

Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes to Understand & Measure the Patient Experience of Novel Cell and Gene Therapies.

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are the gold standard for assessing patients' experience of treatment in oncology, defined in the 21st Century Cures Act as information about patients' experiences with a disease or condition, including the impact of a disease or condition, or a related therapy or clinical investigation on patients' lives; and patient preferences with respect to treatment of their disease or condition [1]. PROs provide a comprehensive assessment of the benefits and risks of new medical products, as well as essential data to inform real-world use. Although RCTs are the ultimate source for information for evaluating products in development, they are not always feasible for rare diseases with few or no effective treatment options available. Thus, it is important to consider other measures that can help to improve the strength of evidence for cell and gene therapies targeting rare indications. While collection of PROs and other patient experience endpoints does not resolve the difficulty of conducting trials in small populations, doing so contributes empirical evidence that informs both product development and patient access. Additionally, including routine collection of PROs in registries may provide supplemental data to further characterize the benefit:risk profile of cell and gene therapies at follow-up times that would be infeasible to operationalize in a clinical trial setting.

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Improving attribution of adverse events in oncology clinical trials.

Attribution of adverse events (AEs) is critical to oncology drug development and the regulatory process. However, processes for determining the causality of AEs are often sub-optimal, unreliable, and inefficient. Thus, we conducted a toxicity-attribution workshop in Silver Springs MD to develop guidance for improving attribution of AEs in oncology clinical trials. Attribution stakeholder experts from regulatory agencies, sponsors and contract research organizations, clinical trial principal investigators, pre-clinical translational scientists, and research staff involved in capturing attribution information participated. We also included patients treated in oncology clinical trials and academic researchers with expertise in attribution. We identified numerous challenges with AE attribution, including the non-informative nature of and burdens associated with the 5-tier system of attribution, increased complexity of trial logistics, costs and time associated with AE attribution data collection, lack of training in attribution for early-career investigators, insufficient baseline assessments, and lack of consistency in the reporting of treatment-related and treatment-emergent AEs in publications and clinical scientific reports. We developed recommendations to improve attribution: we propose transitioning from the present 5-tier system to a 2-3 tier system for attribution, more complete baseline information on patients' clinical status at trial entry, and mechanisms for more rapid sharing of AE information during trials. Oncology societies should develop recommendations and training in attribution of toxicities. We call for further harmonization and synchronization of recommendations regarding causality safety reporting between FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies. Finally, we suggest that journals maintain or develop standardized requirements for reporting attribution in oncology clinical trials.

Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Methods for item selection in industry-sponsored oncology clinical trials.

As new cancer treatment regimens demonstrate increased potential to improve patients' survival, more focus is directed toward the quality of that extension of life and to obtaining additional information from patients regarding their experience with treatment. The utility of capturing patient-reported treatment-related symptoms to complement traditional clinician-rated symptomatic adverse event reporting is well-documented. The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library aimed at capturing patient-reported symptoms to inform the patient perspective on a treatment's tolerability. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in clinical trials. A practical guideline is needed to inform a priori selection of specific Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events items for use in any given industry-sponsored oncology clinical trial. Standardizing this selection process will foster systematic and consistent data collection as part of drug development and enhance our knowledge on how to use patient-relevant information as part of a treatment's risk/benefit assessment. This article presents methods and consensus recommendations for selecting specific Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events items to include in early-phase and late-phase oncology clinical trials.

Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review.

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients-66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs.

Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including "missing data,""health-related quality of life," and "patient-reported outcome." Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. CONCLUSION: The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards.

Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in cancer randomised trials to assist in assessing the risks and benefits of cancer therapies and fostering patient-centred cancer care. However, the various ways these measures are analysed and interpreted make it difficult to compare results across trials, and hinders the application of research findings to inform publications, product labelling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. To address these problems, the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data (SISAQOL) initiative has been established. This consortium, directed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was convened to provide recommendations on how to standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised trials. This Personal View discusses the reasons why this project was initiated, the rationale for the planned work, and the expected benefits to cancer research, patient and provider decision making, care delivery, and policy making.

Validation of a treatment satisfaction questionnaire in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: assessing the change from intravenous to subcutaneous administration of rituximab.

BACKGROUND: A subcutaneous (SC) formulation of rituximab (MabThera®/Rituxan®) has been developed that could reduce administration time and improve patient satisfaction with treatment. The Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire (RASQ) was created to assess patients' perceptions and satisfaction with rituximab SC (RASQ-SC) or rituximab intravenous (RASQ-IV). We assessed the content validity and psychometric properties of RASQ in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: Face and content validity of RASQ-SC and RASQ-IV were qualitatively assessed using 60-minute combined concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews. Psychometric validation of RASQ (item performance and reliability) was assessed quantitatively against the established Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ), using questionnaire data from the PrefMab (NCT01724021) and MabCute (NCT01461928) clinical studies. RESULTS: RASQ-IV demonstrated excellent coverage of concepts relevant to patients' (n=10) own treatment experiences and no new concepts were identified. Patients' expectations of rituximab SC were conceptually consistent with items included in the RASQ-SC, suggesting that the tool is also conceptually adequate. In 1,051 patients from PrefMab and MabCute, correlations with domains such as "RASQ: Physical Impacts" and "CTSQ: Feelings About Side Effects", "RASQ: Physical Impacts" and "CTSQ: Satisfaction With Therapy", and "RASQ: Satisfaction" and "CTSQ: Satisfaction With Therapy", achieved moderate-to-high correlations (>0.4) for convergent domains and <0.3 for divergent domains. CONCLUSION: This study supports the qualitative face and content validity and psychometric validity of RASQ-IV and RASQ-SC. Minor revisions were made to the questionnaires to enhance clarity and aid consistent reporting.

Safety and efficacy of dacomitinib in korean patients with KRAS wild-type advanced non-small-cell lung cancer refractory to chemotherapy and erlotinib or gefitinib: a phase I/II trial.

INTRODUCTION: Dacomitinib (PF-00299804), an irreversible pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor ([HER]-1/EGFR, HER-2, and HER-4) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated antitumor activity in Western patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at a dose of 45 mg once daily. We report data from a phase I/II, multicenter, open-label study of Korean patients with refractory KRAS wild-type adenocarcinoma NSCLC (defined as patients with evidence of disease progression during or within 6 months of treatment with chemotherapy and gefitinib or erlotinib). METHODS: The phase I dose-finding portion identified the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) in Korean patients, evaluated safety, and characterized the pharmacokinetics of dacomitinib. In the phase II portion, patients received dacomitinib at the RP2D. The primary end point was progression-free survival at 4 months (PFS4m). RESULTS: Twelve patients enrolled in phase I, and 43 patients enrolled in phase II at the RP2D of 45 mg once daily. In phase II, PFS4m was 47.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31.6-61.3; one-sided p-value = 0.0007). Median PFS was 15.4 weeks (95% CI, 9.7-17.6); median overall survival was 46.3 weeks (95% CI, 32.7-not reached); and the objective response rate was 17.1% (95% CI, 7.2-32.1). Common treatment-related adverse events were dermatitis acneiform, diarrhea, and paronychia; there were no treatment-related grade 4 or 5 adverse events. Pharmacokinetic parameters of dacomitinib in Korean patients were similar to those reported in Western patients. By patient report, NSCLC symptoms "cough" and "pain" showed improvement within 3 weeks of initiating treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Dacomitinib was well tolerated and had antitumor activity in Korean patients with NSCLC who had previously progressed on chemotherapy and an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

A phase 2 trial of dacomitinib (PF-00299804), an oral, irreversible pan-HER (human epidermal growth factor receptor) inhibitor, in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer after failure of prior chemotherapy and erlotinib.

BACKGROUND: This phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00548093) assessed the efficacy, safety, and impact on health-related quality of life of dacomitinib (PF-00299804), an irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) of human epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR)/HER1, HER2, and HER4, in patients with KRAS wild-type non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC, progression on 1 or 2 regimens of chemotherapy and erlotinib, KRAS wild-type or known EGFR-sensitizing mutant tumor, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 received 45 mg of dacomitinib once daily continuously in 21-day cycles. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients enrolled (adenocarcinoma, n = 50; those without adenocarcinoma [nonadenocarcinoma], n = 16). The objective response rate (ORR) for patients with adenocarcinoma (primary endpoint) was 5% (2 partial responses; 1-sided P = .372 for null hypothesis [H0 ]: ORR ≤ 5%) and 6% (1 partial response) for patients with nonadenocarcinoma. Responders included: 2 of 25 EGFR mutation-positive tumors; 1 of 3 EGFR wild-type with HER2 amplification. Median progression-free survival was 12 weeks overall (n = 66) and 18 weeks (n = 26) for patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors. Common treatment-related adverse events were of grade 1 or 2 severity, manageable with standard supportive care, and included diarrhea (grade 3 [G3], 12%), acneiform dermatitis (G3, 6%), exfoliative rash (G3, 3%), dry skin (G3, 0%), fatigue (G3, 3%), and stomatitis (G3, 2%). Six patients (9%) discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events. By patient report, NSCLC symptoms of dyspnea, cough, and pain (chest, arm/shoulder) showed improvement first observed after 3 weeks on therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Dacomitinib demonstrated preliminary activity and acceptable tolerability in heavily pretreated patients, and may offer benefit in molecularly defined patient subsets.

Health-related quality of life in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer receiving bevacizumab or bevacizumab-plus-pemetrexed maintenance therapy in AVAPERL (MO22089).

INTRODUCTION: In the phase III AVAPERL trial, patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer receiving bevacizumab-plus-pemetrexed maintenance after first-line induction had a significant progression-free survival benefit relative to those treated with single-agent bevacizumab maintenance but with an increase in grade ≥3 adverse events. Here, we compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between AVAPERL maintenance arms. METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes were collected at designated intervals from preinduction to final visits. HRQOL was assessed using the self-administered European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and the Quality of Life Lung Cancer-Specific Module 13. Differences in scores of 10 points or more between arms were above the minimum important difference threshold and considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: During induction, patient-reported coughing symptoms improved slightly, whereas fatigue and appetite loss scores worsened relative to preinduction baseline. During maintenance, changes in mean global health status and the majority of Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Quality of Life Lung Cancer-Specific Module 13 subscale scores did not differ between trial arms by the minimum important difference defining clinically meaningful (better or worse) patient-reported outcomes. Exceptions were patient-reported role functional status, fatigue symptoms and appetite loss symptoms (favoring bevacizumab), and pain in arm or shoulder symptoms (favoring bevacizumab-plus-pemetrexed maintenance), which differed by clinically meaningful amounts at more than one maintenance assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In AVAPERL, HRQOL remained relatively stable throughout maintenance and was generally similar in both arms. Despite an increase in adverse event rates, the addition of pemetrexed to bevacizumab maintenance resulted in similar stabilization of disease symptoms with improved efficacy outcomes.

Randomized phase II study of dacomitinib (PF-00299804), an irreversible pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This randomized, open-label trial compared dacomitinib (PF-00299804), an irreversible inhibitor of human epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR)/HER1, HER2, and HER4, with erlotinib, a reversible EGFR inhibitor, in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, no prior HER-directed therapy, and one/two prior chemotherapy regimens received dacomitinib 45 mg or erlotinib 150 mg once daily. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients were randomly assigned. Treatment arms were balanced for most clinical and molecular characteristics. Median progression-free survival (PFS; primary end point) was 2.86 months for patients treated with dacomitinib and 1.91 months for patients treated with erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.91; two-sided P = .012); in patients with KRAS wild-type tumors, median PFS was 3.71 months for patients treated with dacomitinib and 1.91 months for patients treated with erlotinib (HR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.85; two-sided P = .006); and in patients with KRAS wild-type/EGFR wild-type tumors, median PFS was 2.21 months for patients treated with dacomitinib and 1.84 months for patients treated with erlotinib (HR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99; two-sided P = .043). Median overall survival was 9.53 months for patients treated with dacomitinib and 7.44 months for patients treated with erlotinib (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.13; two-sided P = .205). Adverse event-related discontinuations were uncommon in both arms. Common treatment-related adverse events were dermatologic and gastrointestinal, predominantly grade 1 to 2, and more frequent with dacomitinib. CONCLUSION: Dacomitinib demonstrated significantly improved PFS versus erlotinib, with acceptable toxicity. PFS benefit was observed in most clinical and molecular subsets, notably KRAS wild-type/EGFR any status, KRAS wild-type/EGFR wild-type, and EGFR mutants.